And he should know because Watts was the head of the Freddie Mac Watch Committee in Congress.
Paul Krugman is the neo-Marxist “economist (and I use the term loosely) from the New York Times. He has been documented wrong more than any columnist I am aware of. Unfortunately, like too many “economists” he is a totally partisan political hack.
Speaking like a true advocate of the Alinsky Model….
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base.
Unless abortion and pressure from eco-extremists about “population control” wither your tax base and work force – and then those making the loans figure out that you have no intention of stopping the accumulation of new debt or paying it back.
The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
This is not an argument for increasing debt, this is an argument for economic growth. Growth that is stymied by the anti-wealth, anti-capital and anti-production policies that Paul Krugman advocates. Wealth is the opposite of poverty.
Also, the income subject to taxation is not very relevant. It is the amount of money put in a taxable position by people moving it in ways that are taxable and in ways that take risk to create wealth. It is about tax compliance. The higher the rates, the greater the noncompliance and “Going Galt”. It is also about increasing the growing number of tax payers which only happens when people are confident to produce and take risk here in the United States.
Our friend NeoNeocon has a great critique of this piece HERE. Go read it.
This editor has said this for a long time. Romney is who they know best and it is who the Democrats want to run against. Like Dole and McCain, Romney will trash other Republicans, but always says that we should not be “strident” in our critiques of the Democrats.
Real Clear Politics has the video HERE.
Dick Harpootlian: “We’re looking forward to blood on the ground here in the next three weeks and I think you’re going to see Mitt Romney not able to take the punch, which I am hoping he is the nominee because I know watching him in ’08 that he can’t take a punch. The guy does not have the ability to deliver. He’s pro-abortion and anti-abortion; he’s pro-intervention, he’s against intervention; he’s pro-tarp, he’s against tarp. He’s all over the map, he’s the guy we want to run against.”
Professor William Jacobson has it spot on as he explains in a three part article: